As someone whos currently organizing a Mordheim campaign, having this feedback on scenarios is great. We are using a whole host of them (theyre what brings narrative into the tabletop with zero effort).Heres some of our experiences with some of them:

-Lost Mines of Krazi Drudd: we stuck to the 'setup terrain first and not generate dungeon tiles' instructions (because I wanted to use my Terraclips on this) but yes, its weird that it doesnt call for the tiles. The random encounter tokens are great fun, but we decided to increase their number a bit. (We have little problem in putting scenarios under the GM knife). I can say however that nobody was afraid of the tokens (and their threat of a troll) so they looked at them as potential xp, which i believe is not what they were intended for. Increase number of monsters, perhaps? But it galled us too that all this cool mine exploration had no purpose but to beat each other up. So we liberally decided to use Werekin's Subterranean events' (great stuff man!) from Burrow Town Collapsing scenario, triggering on a 4+ whenever a room was first entered. This way u could have more stuff happenin, the feeling of exploration and the chance to grab some goods (or steal em from other warbands).

-the Flood Plain: this scenario requires that you DO place those boats/rafts ON players deployment zones, or at least lots of little islands with good walkways (we will never that mistake again).Warbands will move VERY slowly in water, especially dwarves n undead. It take this as an "aquatic light" scenario, where u can use the boat rules if u have bought one (Sartosa rules recommended for this), but its not that bad if u dont have one. But id like to see a proper scenario for piracy on the Reik though!

We havent yet rolled stagecoach ambush or necromancers tower, but your feedback already allowed us to tweak em a bit. For stagecoach, all horses have the "battle schooled" rule of warhorses, which allows u to re roll the Ld test for out of control. This keeps thosr who've taken the Ride skill still at a benefit. For attacking warbands that cant buy mounts just use the suggestion they had for dwarves (barricade and a wagon).

I'll comment more on our shenanigans with them as u list them up.Keep it up man, this is a great community resource.

Hey Nuno!Welcome to the forum! You are most welcome. If the thread proves useful it gets to stay in its new location permanently. Also you don't have to wait for me to post something if you have a reaction to a scenario, you can post your own or make a request. I haven't played EVERY scenario (and I'm only doing reviews of scenarios I am very familiar with.)

The premise of the scenario is that the warbands are exploring the Old Forest when they encounter each other and the mysterious creatures called Spites. The Spites will randomly enchant the closest model (they will only target a model once per turn.)

This scenario is basically an Empire in Flames skirmish with some random NPCs. I really enjoy the scenario, although I am amazed at how many times the Spites (who act in a totally random way) seemed to just pick on one particular player in a game while not affecting the other player at all. Our Hochland Bandits player was guaranteed to lose at least one warrior to the activities of the Spites every time he encountered them.

Games which featured a lot of terrain tended to favor the Spites being able to have some impact on play. Tables that were fairly open expose the Spites to attacks from the hostile warbands, which rarely end well for the T2 Spites.

One thing I just finally noticed after years of including this scenario in campaigns is that this scenario does NOT award experience for putting enemies out of action. We never awarded experience for wounded Spites (since they flee the table if they suffer a "successful wound." We interpret flee the table as meaning they are immediately removed.) We did gleefully collect experience for our heroes who put enemies out of action though (and will probably continue to.)

FEEDBACKPlease feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

This review ends my trip through the Nemesis Crown scenarios. I have never had the occasion to play scenario eight: Fowl Play although it looks like it would be fun. For my next installment I will continue my woodland theme and discuss The Twisted Copse.

One thing I just finally noticed after years of including this scenario in campaigns is that this scenario does NOT award experience for putting enemies out of action. We never awarded experience for wounded Spites (since they flee the table if they suffer a "successful wound." We interpret flee the table as meaning they are immediately removed.) We did gleefully collect experience for our heroes who put enemies out of action though (and will probably continue to.)

It's interesting that you say that. I know wonder if there are any others that way. We've gotten so used to experience for taking enemies out of action that if you'd told me it was in the main rules rather than then senairo rules I'd have believed you without question.

I was quite surprised as the +1 Experience for a hero taking an enemy out of action is universal in the rulebook scenarios. It is odd in the Wild Wood scenario, as the scenario has no other goal than breaking the enemy. I would sort of expect it in the Nightfall scenario as that is more of a race than a fight as far as the special rules of the scenario are concerned...

So I look up the Nightfall scenario. Yes you receive no reward for taking enemies out of action there either. Well if we ever play Nightfall again I hope I remember to read the whole scenario!Now that I've pointed out Nightfall, the Flood Plain and the Shifting Paths do not reward fighting either, but both end when one warband routs. Very interesting.

Yes it does. The whole thing makes a bit more sense now, although the other scenarios that do not award experience for enemies ooa make less sense. I do not expect we will change the way we have been playing them.

Nightfall on the other hand might be more interesting as a race (at least if you are not dwarfs...)

@Von Kurst: glad to help Having an experienced commentary on scenario playability can help us tackle them in our own games. If you don't mind, I'll let you go first at reviewing any given scenario first: your format is much much more informed, in experience in playing them, and on authors But I'll keep commenting in on our experiences with them, and how they may be changed if people are so inclined.Also I took many scenarios to the knife and tweaked them before we even played them (I'll do anything to reduce in-game rules/balance discussions!!), so it wouldn't be a very objective "first-look" at a scenario

Hmmm... true I also have been considering the "Take Enemy Out of Action" as almost a base rule in the game... So much that I put them back in for those scenarios that "seem to have forgotten them", for our campaign list of scenarios.But I haven't thought how much keeping it out can impact a player's drive to fulfill an objective... I might go back and take them away. There are several "Breakthrough-like" scenarios that could also benefit from such a rule being absent.

Also I took many scenarios to the knife and tweaked them before we even played them (I'll do anything to reduce in-game rules/balance discussions!!), so it wouldn't be a very objective "first-look" at a scenario

I ended up making a similar comment about the Lustrian scenarios when I reviewed them. I like the premise of most of them, but the translation from idea to tabletop didn't appeal. So I re-wrote most of them before ever playing a campaign.

The reason I chose the Nemesis Crown set for this incarnation of the thread is because I enjoy most of them right out of the box. And the one I really hated, I was playing wrong!

Nemesis Crown scenarios are great, and together with some of those "That Almost Got Away" and a few others in Fanatic Magazine/Online(one or the other), they give us a good palette for Empire in Flames campaigns: non-urban open terrain, mounts, boats, watchtower raids, merchant carts, ferries, etc.

Regarding the "Not giving XP for KO-ing Enemy", what if you were to remove that also from "Breakthrough"-like scenarios, but only for the *attackers* (ie. they only get XP for getting across, while defenders get full XP for taking them out). Too much? would we be playing with fire? It would certainly make powerful warbands (who would have all the reason for not even trying to get across, just stomp the opponent) to try to fulfill the scenario's objective.Food for thought.

The premise of the scenario is that the warbands have entered an area of the forest that is heavily influenced by Chaos. As they move through the forest, the forest will shift and warp to confuse them. The premise is similar to the scenario Shifting Paths above. In practice the two scenarios are quite different. Mainly because the woods of the Twisted Copse will actually take the warbands with them when they move which is quite entertaining. A lucky move can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. An unlucky landing (or departure) can ruin a player's plan and lose the game. Also the objective of the Twisted Copse is to exit the table by the edge opposite the player's entrance, whereas the Shifting Paths just rewards the warband that doesn't break.

When we first played this scenario it was an immediate hit with the players in the group. We include it in our Empire in Flames campaigns since our group hasn't ventured to the Border Town. The Old Forest fits the scenario like a glove. My group has played the scenario many times, including turning it into a multi-player scenario and adding a Thing in the Woods variant.

The one problem we have encountered is the set up, which as written is pretty much up to the players. If you have too many tree bases (forests/woods) the game bogs down because ALL of them need to be rolled for EACH player turn, even if all of them do not necessarily move. If you have only a couple of woods, the scenario becomes a skirmish with unnecessary special rules. So a suggestion of how many bases of woods to have on the table would not have been remiss.

I recommend a number that you can easily randomize such as 8 (D8), 10 (D10), 11 (2D6) or 12 (D12). 20 (or more) is too many. More than 12 means that one must become inventive with random rolls and risk re-rolling when numbers that are not represented are rolled. (Patient groups with nothing else to do for the evening may ignore my advice. My group wants a game that can be played to a conclusion in three hours or less.) I am of the opinion that if you have 12 woods bases that have a footprint between 6 and 10 inches, you have enough woods. If your woods bases are bigger you need fewer. If you are using individually based trees to represent woods, you are daft.

Another note on scenery: I like individually based trees placed on a flocked scenery base to represent woods for skirmish games. Using such a system for this scenario is a nightmare of falling trees and knocked about models. Using woods/forest scenery with the trees fixed to their base is much easier and safer for models.

FEEDBACKPlease feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

I wonder if Cianty intended this one as an improvement/successor on the "Shifting Paths"-type scenario. The fact that it uses 'woods terrain pieces' (ie. Citadel Woods, or the like) works pretty much the same but much better in practical and visual terms. And as Von Kurst pointed out, Shifting Paths relies on you using the paths as terrain pieces, but any additional scenery in between them makes moving them around a huge mess :SAgain, the win condition not being a 'skirmish' also makes it more interesting.

We have finally played Enter the Necromancer's Tower.We did modify it slightly before, including that:-you actually must enter the tower terrain piece, and you have to defeat a Ghoul which has 'Scale sheer surfaces' skill at the top (the necromancer's "favoured" servant). This is how it looked like: click here.The Ghoul is holding a magical key you need to grab (which shuts down the zombie-factory & spells, and wins you the tower itself if you're the last warband standing). However, the ghoul tries to escape by climbing down the tower as soon as anyone comes near him, and running around the board! A Benny Hill-like pursuit ensued, which was great fun. (Ghoul with the key was inspired by golden oldie 'Death on the Reik' module, from 'The Enemy Within' WHF Roleplay campaign)-We also included more zombies at the start, and a higher chance of zombie spawning.

I think our biggest gripe was with the things we hadn't changed, which was the range at which you can get targeted by the spells (more than 12" from the tower), and where you actually start on the board (8" in from table edge). Which means that, assuming you deploy your models 6"-8" from the table edge, and the tower is at the center of the table (~20-22" from the table edge), you only get hit by the large nasty spell for a stretch of ~4" (ie. the time it takes you to get from the edge of your deployment zone to within the tower's 12" protected bubble). If you are a fast warband, by turn 2 your models are all within 12" of the tower and completely safe from the blast spell (and therefore that interesting scenario rule becomes moot).We wondered if the zombies could play a bigger role at tackling models, preventing them from coming too close too fast. So either the zombies move before the players' turn (instead of after) so they can spread out more, or the players should start 4" from table edge :SAnd we also worried whether throwing too many zombies as easy XP farming (which is included in this scenario's rules) would be too much of a tasty treat for whoever is lucky to play that scenario in a campaign. We might have to go back to the drawing board regarding zombie number on that one.

I really like the idea of the ghoul with a key NPC. Thank you for the feedback.______________________________________________________________________________________Mule TrainWritten by Robert Walker. Originally published in TC#14, p. 11.Also published in the 2002 Mordheim Annual, p. 73.In both publications the scenario is part of the Blazing Saddles Article and does not appear in the table of contents.

Mule Train is one of those scenarios that I love to hate. I have included it largely unchanged in many campaigns because I love the idea of bandits attacking the mule train.

Remember the scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Butch and Sundance are trying to go straight by hiring on as caravan guards for a mule train. The train is attacked by bandits in the mountains. That's my inspiration whenever I include the scenario in a campaign. We use mules, pack camels and skink slave bearers to represent the mules. Our mule trains are attacked in Old World forests, Lustrian jungles, Arabyan deserts and mountains. We never play the scenario in a Mordheim campaign, but I'm sure it might be fun.

Our Defender never wins by leading any mules off the table. Our Defenders either break their attackers or rout. We have two approaches as Defenders: release the mules and hope that the chaos they create will distract the Attacker, or get bogged down trying to lead stubborn mules which leads to unhappiness and complaining.

Attackers generally kill mules or try to capture a mule that has nearly exited the table and break the defender. (We count dead mules as loot if an Attacker can rout the Defender.)

Mule Train is one of those scenarios that as written rewards only exiting the table with the objective (or, in this case, mules). For the Defender we have found that this is an impossible task. Only a stubborn attacker will not rout if the fight goes against him and only a poor strategist would leave an open path for the Defenders to reach the opposite table edge. Our group includes neither, at least as far as this scenario is concerned.

The Defender also has to face the fact that he is going to a lot of trouble for little reward. In our group the Defender is largely playing a Skirmish with a mule stampede event. If the Attacker can get a hold of mule he gains the Slaughtered Warband exploration result, which is a pretty high motivation. Defenders that wish to win count on the attackers' motivation to capture mules to reduce the number of effective fighters the Attacker can field as his warriors try to corral stubborn mules.

This is another scenario that I include because the Attackers love the rewards and the Defenders do not complain too much (at least as long as they let go of the stupid mules...) And I have all these mules, pack camels and skink slave bearers...

FEEDBACKPlease feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Mule Train is a very iconic scenario, it adds lots of character to a 'wilderness' campaign

We did away with the Mule's 'Stubborn' rule (assumed these are expertly trained mules), otherwise it would take forever to push them across. And because mules only panic near a combat if they are not led (if i remember correctly), u can fight while leading a mule. You can also run while leading them, I believe (mules have a move of 6", so a run of up to 12" max if your warrrior can move that fast).

For rewards, we let the defender earn Gc but also gain Campaign Points if he wins (this obviously only works in campaign play), which is a much stronger motivator.We did change the rewards for the attacker: per mule captured u roll once on a watered-down version of the crates table from the 'Down in the Docks' scenario.

Also, despite the explicit wording of the scenario I generally think it is better to avoid awarding XP for killing zombies. That would make them more of a hindrance than an opportunity for cheap XP. Also, is the goal is the tower than removing XP for the zombies puts the focus back on the tower and away from XP farming.

Enter the Necromancer's TowerOur group hasn't had any issue with the set up, mainly I suspect because no one has figured out that if they move toward the tower that large template stops hitting them. Also we have a number of campaign rules that slow warbands down, like weather and darkness.

The Slyvanian variant linked in the review introduces super zombies and a mean necromancer to make zombie farming more dangerous.

I see. We only play with Random Events (Border Town list). I still have to push the weather rolls with my group (too many rules flying around already, they feel). *sigh* Your group must just love gettin' stuck in for a good scrap

I saw the Sylvanian variant. It fits really well for that setting, but substitutes "zombie mob!" for "few ultra-dangerous zombie bodyguards". So less of a march of the dead feel, which I'm quite fond of. Also, the plague effect eliminating warriors from the roster is a bit too nasty, in my mind. My group would hate me if they got stuck playing that If you substitute that effect with insta-Outta-Action, however, that evens it out. Could even have to miss next game too, as well (just not dead-dead! ).

@RationalLemming: Thanks, it just seems a shame when rules that can be interesting may end up lose their relevance just from the way they interact with the other scenario rules.Regarding the zombies giving XP, we resorted for them to only give +1XP on a roll of 5+. Farming is less worth it, but a chance of a reward still, if u kill tons of them.

Ja, there is the auto kill thingy. I was kinda worried about that, but no one really complained. I never got to play the scenario, but the folks who did were just after the treasure, they didn't care how they got it.

The Monster HuntThis scenario was originally published as part of the Chaos in the Streets article in a White Dwarf magazine back when the Town Cryer was included in the White Dwarf. The article was then published in The Best of Town Cryer, pp. 37-40 and in The 2002 Mordheim Annual, pp. 33-6. Mark Havener is credited as the author.

Monster Hunt is one of my least favorite multiplayer scenarios. The scenario is not a hunt for a monster, since there is no mystery as to where or what the monster is. As written the scenario sort of reminds me of those awful 'hunting' preserves where the prey is penned in an area and the 'hunter' shoots it from an air conditioned blind equipped with a buffet and a full bar. When we play the scenario as written, the monster is usually shot down in the first few turns if there is any type of shooting warband involved or it is killed later in one or two rounds by a massed rush of melee fighters. The monster usually inflicts no damage and only rarely gets to attack at all. It never moves.

The players in my group love this scenario, especially if they are fielding a shooting warband. Melee oriented warbands tend to complain that they have no chance to kill the monster.

I have tried a couple of tweaks to let the monster at least get some licks in before being shot down or overwhelmed. One is to have the monster start as hidden and the other is to have the monster charge any warband member it can see and reach. This usually results in the monster being baited to leave its lair and then killed, but at least there is some strategy involved.

I have also tried representing the treasure hoard with counters for each possible treasure. The monster does not appear until it's hoard is threatened. In this scenario the monster can be led away from the lair. Or it can be distracted by trying to recapture its loot. Thus ALL warbands can try to loot the hoard as well as kill the monster.

I am sure that there are a number of solutions to the tether the monster, kill it and take the treasure nature of the scenario as written. I'd love to hear more.

FEEDBACKPlease feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.___________________________________________________________________________________

I totally agree. This is a favourite scenario in my group because of the loot on offer. However, the monster is rarely a problem and never a threat. I haven't tried to improve the rules though so I cannot offer any feedback in that regards.

I guess the reason the scenario annoys me so is that the monster is an experience cow that rivals zombies in late games, since you get +1 experience for a successful wound. This reward against creatures with low armor saves and not that great a Toughness.

I prefer monsters like the Thing in the Woods that can actually go toe to toe with a warband on a good night. I want the warbands' heroes to actually have to earn that experience.

Our players have complained of the same (easy to kill), and once even threw in more monsters (which gave off no XP) just to make it less boring. Shouldn't the scenario really be about a creature so nasty it can eat half a warband alive before it can be brought down? Hence this being a multiplayer scenario, hinting at some necessity for collaboration?

I've recently made the monsters' stats slightly tougher and deadlier. Gave them also the Gigantic Monster rule featured in BTB, we'll see how our monster hunters fare now.

Hidden setup is a great idea: how do u decide where the monster is placed once warbands walk in there? scatter dice?I'll apply that also to BTB's Chaos Dragon Hunt (as that scenario runs off roughly the same script as this one).

If the lair were to be bigger (say... 18" wide), with tall (ruined) walls and full of obstacles/walls inside as well... that'd be a lair perfect for chases and hide-n-seek with the monster.

Shouldn't the scenario really be about a creature so nasty it can eat half a warband alive before it can be brought down? Hence this being a multiplayer scenario, hinting at some necessity for collaboration?

Well I'm not much for encouraging collaboration. I like a good every man for himself scrum. I am all for a monster that can destroy half a warband, although usually it gets the wrong warband. I have a variety of scenarios for different settings. My Lustrian Monster Hunts feature full strength Carnosaurs and Stegadons. Those can get pretty bloody.

Quote :

I've recently made the monsters' stats slightly tougher and deadlier. Gave them also the Gigantic Monster rule featured in BTB, we'll see how our monster hunters fare now.

I tried tying the monster's stats to the highest warband rating for awhile. If the warbands were under 200 there was no change. 200-299 +1 to S, T, W and A. 300-whatever: +2 to S, T, W and A.

I need to read the Gigantic Monster rule.

Quote :

Hidden setup is a great idea: how do u decide where the monster is placed once warbands walk in there? scatter dice?

It depends. I have tried a few different ways. At the moment I am going with scatter dice for a revision of the Sartosan scenario Here Be Monsters. Otherwise I have had the monster appear within 8 inches of the treasure pile and attack the nearest model carrying any treasure. Once I tried having flying monsters begin the game flying high out of missile range like 5th edition Warhammer. Then the monster would dive bomb any model in the open or on a roof that aggravated it or that was helpless because they were knocked down or stunned. (This also works with flocks of lesser monsters like harpies, fell bats or carrion.)

Quote :

If the lair were to be bigger (say... 18" wide), with tall (ruined) walls and full of obstacles/walls inside as well... that'd be a lair perfect for chases and hide-n-seek with the monster.

I use a similar lair size for my Khemri monsters. The lair has to have large entrances, but they are arranged like a maze so that there is no straight hallway into the lair.

The Thing in the WoodsOriginally published in TC#25 pp. 14-15. Republished in the Empire in Flames, pp. 42-43. No single author is credited, however it appears in an article authored by Nick Kyme, Steve Hambrook and Mark Havener.

The scenario suffers from having to reference a completely separate article for the rules for The Thing (TC#28, p. 8 and Empire in Flames, p. 78.) Both the scenario and the rules for the main antagonist share the same title. At least if you own the Empire in Flames you only have to flip back and forth between the rules for the scenario and the rules for the Thing.

This scenario is hands down my favorite of the Empire in Flames offerings (though it doesn't have a lot of competition from that setting as the only other scenario I enjoy is The Frenzied Mob.) The scenario is GW's werewolf scenario. I find it clearly written (once you assemble all the necessary rules) and suitably tense (especially for starting warbands.) The Things are really tough and can pose a challenge to most warbands at most experience levels. (I find this to be a good thing, my fellow players do not always agree.)

One phenomenon my group has encountered is that irregardless of the number of players, the randomly placed Things tend to gang up on one player, which can be devastating to beginning warbands. This sort of thing seems to happen with random encounters for my group, but is really noticeable for Spites and Things. However we keep playing, because everyone wants to have a hero become a werewolf, which is quite rare. The more warriors you have put out of action by Things, the more likely that one of them will become a werewolf!

We enjoy this scenario so much we have included a hybrid multiplayer scenario that combines The Twisted Copse with The Thing in the Woods. We often use the hybrid scenario as a end of campaign slug fest.

Our only constant problem with the scenario is remembering to have all the necessary TCs or rulebooks to play the darn Thing.

FEEDBACKPlease feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

um...yep, thats a great scenario not much to say, as it works pretty well. Even with the random 'Thing' placement possibly screwing some people, you can always manipulate the monster moving by drawing it away with a cheap henchman towards the enemy. The mayhem is great.

However, making the lycanthropy happen *ever* so slightly more often would be quite cool...because with the bonus of possibly transforming into a Balewolf during battle (GOOD ) is the risk of the transformation being permanent, he runs away and you lose a possibly well-leveled Hero (BAD ). So it balances out gaining all that power because u can lose it just as easily.If so, do you think one would run the risk of creating the situation where too many Heroes become balewolves too early in the campaign?

PS: I keep all the scenario rules in a single file, where each page is a copy-pasted collage of all the rules I need for each scenario sloppy but effective. print scenario u need for that game, and presto.